Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did you even read the OP? We're talking about cyclists who literally blow through stop signs and red lights (meaning they don't slow down at all). An "Idaho stop" is completely reasonable where a stop sign functions as the equivalent of a yield sign. But most cyclists are not treating stop signs as such. They are just running them because they can.
What about not slowing down for a stop sign where you have a clear view of traffic and you can see there is none at all that could intersect?
The bottom line is that no cop is ever going to ticket a guy riding a bicycle who sails through a stop sign on a residential street with no traffic present, but he will ticket a car every time. The reason for that is because the traffic court is not empowered to assess a fine for that. As desperate as the courts are for every penny, there is no way a judge would assess a fine on a school kid for riding no-handed or on the wrong side of the street in front of his house in a residential neighborhood with no traffic in sight.
Yes, in an extreme situation, where there is substantial traffic and an obvious danger to the biker or the ambient traffic, a law exists which enables a cop to remove an offending biker. But otherwise, if a citizen is not operating a vehicle for which a license is required, he has constitutional protection from being detained on a public street without probable cause, and riding a bike by itself is not a probable cause, no matter if there is a law that it is subject to the rules of the road. The same constitutional protection applies to a person riding a bike and a person walking a bike.
I will bet that in Texas or New Hampshire or any other state, there has never been a case brought to court in which a person is being charged with nothing more than breaking a motor vehicle traffic law on a bike in an environment in which there is no other traffic and the infraction does not represent a clear and present danger to the bike rider of the public safety. But licensed motor vehicles are ticketed for that all the time, and in fact traps are set up to harvest them.
So, as a practical matter, stop signs do not apply to bikers, but in a traffic environment in which the presence of a biker can represent a danger to public safety, the stop signs can be held to apply to anyone present, including bikers.
I love listening to drivers complain about cyclists. They pretend they care about the rules of the road, but all they really care about is that the cyclist doesn't inconvenience them or go through an intersection out of turn. And this is a reasonable gripe, but I don't believe you for one second if you tell me you have the exact same gripe if there isn't a single car on the road. It's all about me me me. No different than with other cars. In my post back on the first page I said that I would roll through a stop sign ONLY AFTER giving any other cars on the road the right of way first. After that it really doesn't matter if I come to an almost non-existant roll, do a track stand or whatever. I was courteous enough to let you have your chance to go through. And like other cyclists who posted, I will always be courteous to other drivers and follow the rules, like using left turn lanes, waiting at stop LIGHTS, using the bike lanes when available and riding in the same direction as cars. I know a lot of cyclists do ignore the rules completely, but don't take out your aggression on those of us who don't.
Another thing... here in Houston I have heard complaints from cyclists that they got ticketed by police for riding on the sidewalk. Sounds kinda crazy but adult cyclists have no business being on a sidewalk which is for pedestrians. You belong in the road, following the same rules of the road as cars. If you want to roll through a stop sign and risk getting a ticket, then that's your business. But at the same time, i bet the cars behind you are grateful for not slowing them down more then you needed to. Those two seconds are precious.
What about not slowing down for a stop sign where you have a clear view of traffic and you can see there is none at all that could intersect?
The problem with that is that bicyclists THINK they have a clear view of traffic and then suddenly there's a car there.
Plus, of course, either you are an adult operating a vehicle on the public roadways and should do so in accordance with the laws of the road just like everyone else, or you're a kid on a bicycle with no responsibility and shouldn't be riding it on the public roadways without an adult accompanying you and making sure you don't do something stupid and get killed. Your choice.
It never ceases to amaze me how people will try their dead level best to come up with reasons why the law that applies to everyone else shouldn't apply to them.
The problem with that is that bicyclists THINK they have a clear view of traffic and then suddenly there's a car there.
Plus, of course, either you are an adult operating a vehicle on the public roadways and should do so in accordance with the laws of the road just like everyone else, or you're a kid on a bicycle with no responsibility and shouldn't be riding it on the public roadways without an adult accompanying you and making sure you don't do something stupid and get killed. Your choice.
It never ceases to amaze me how people will try their dead level best to come up with reasons why the law that applies to everyone else shouldn't apply to them.
Like keep right except to pass
I log about 10k miles a year (down from years past) and I see some really dumb riders. But, I see a LOAD more idiot cagers than riders. I got a ticket at a 4 way stop because I didn't put my foot down. I did a track stand and was stopped the required time. It's more dangerous getting in and out of cleats than it is track standing. I knew arguing this with the moto-cop who "observed" me from 500 yards back was a waste of time. He also missed the J-walker that I almost hit too. I just figure about every 5 years I'll be contributing to some pension plan just like motorists do. j
What drives me nutz is a light that won't change because my bike doesn't have enough metal to trigger it. By law you have to sit through a light change before you run it but if no one is around many lights stay 4 way red.
The problem is is that a bicyclist who does not follow traffic laws is breaking the law, just as a motorist would be.
The only problem is a law mandates stupid and wasteful behavior, which is precisely the reason why it's by and large ignored. If lawbreaking was the only problem, you would have no problem with bicyclists rolling through stop signs in Idaho, a practice which has been legal since 1982, but somehow I suspect that you would still be bugged by it. If breaking a stupid law is a problem, then the logical response is to change it so that it is not stupid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ohiogirl81
Cry me a river.
Why impose suffering on other people unnecessarily? This is why I believe you and some others have a hatred of bicyclists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dissenter
Since you don't think most stop signs are necessary, I'd like to challenge you to come to Virginia and gothrough this stop sign I stop at every single day.
It is impossible to see any coming traffic on 5th St because of all the trees but please barrel through on N Monroe and I promise you it is a mating call for being T-boned.
Intersections with good visibility far outnumber those that are obscured like the one you linked to. In this intersection, for example, the four-way stop is idiotic. Most intersections have visibilities in between these two extremes, but it does illustrate the point. What I would do at the type of intersection you posted is slow to a crawl and then inch forward, looking for cross traffic. I can look for cross traffic just as easily at 3 mph as I can when I'm stopped; perhaps even better, since I can see different sections of the street through the brush as I move along.
"Barreling through" that intersection would be reckless, but you should realize that there is a big difference between slowing to a crawl and looking both ways, and maintaining 20 mph and not even looking - you seem to be under the impression that I advocate the latter. Apparently people's heads cannot move and look unless their car is completely stopped .
Most or all locations seem to feel differently. Usually bikes are not allowed on the sidewalk. They must be on the road and automobile drivers are required to treat them the same as another car. Thus, it is often illegal to squeeze past them unless it is a passing zone and you pass properly the same as passing a car.
Oh really? Then in most locations bicyclists travel with traffic on arterial roads with speed limits of 40 or 50 mph? I hardly ever encounter such a scenario. If a bicycle can't keep up with the flow of traffic then they belong on the sidewalk, or at least the shoulder (assuming there is one), not with the car traffic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TexasHorseLady
It never ceases to amaze me how people will try their dead level best to come up with reasons why the law that applies to everyone else shouldn't apply to them.
It never ceases to amaze me how many reasons some people come up with for obeying stupid laws.
The only problem is a law mandates stupid and wasteful behavior, which is precisely the reason why it's by and large ignored. If lawbreaking was the only problem, you would have no problem with bicyclists rolling through stop signs in Idaho, a practice which has been legal since 1982, but somehow I suspect that you would still be bugged by it. If breaking a stupid law is a problem, then the logical response is to change it so that it is not stupid.
Why impose suffering on other people unnecessarily? This is why I believe you and some others have a hatred of bicyclists.
Intersections with good visibility far outnumber those that are obscured like the one you linked to. In this intersection, for example, the four-way stop is idiotic. Most intersections have visibilities in between these two extremes, but it does illustrate the point. What I would do at the type of intersection you posted is slow to a crawl and then inch forward, looking for cross traffic. I can look for cross traffic just as easily at 3 mph as I can when I'm stopped; perhaps even better, since I can see different sections of the street through the brush as I move along.
"Barreling through" that intersection would be reckless, but you should realize that there is a big difference between slowing to a crawl and looking both ways, and maintaining 20 mph and not even looking - you seem to be under the impression that I advocate the latter. Apparently people's heads cannot move and look unless their car is completely stopped .
Oh really? Then in most locations bicyclists travel with traffic on arterial roads with speed limits of 40 or 50 mph? I hardly ever encounter such a scenario. If a bicycle can't keep up with the flow of traffic then they belong on the sidewalk, or at least the shoulder (assuming there is one), not with the car traffic.
It never ceases to amaze me how many reasons some people come up with for obeying stupid laws.
If you think a law is stupid, the solution is simple - work to change it. Deciding that it just doesn't apply to you because you think it shouldn't is no better than a motorist deciding that the same law (in this case, stopping at stop signs or red lights) doesn't apply to them because THEY think it's stupid. And yet I'd be willing to bet money that you'd be all over anyone driving a car that did exactly what you're advocating, barreling through a stop sign or red light because they just KNOW there's no one coming, especially if it put a bicyclist at risk.
The thinking bolded above is an example of lazy, if not downright childish, thinking (and let's not even get in to the entitlement mentality at work) on the part of anyone who is sharing the roadways with other people in a variety of vehicles.
So, I was driving today and a biker just runs a stop sign. Had I not been paying attention I could have easily drove into her. So, I must ask the question, do stop signs apply to bikers, or are they somehow exempt from this? I mean, this girl could have got herself killed!
No, as a matter of fact mere rules do not apply to cyclists. They are above mere traffic regulations.
The bottom line is that no cop is ever going to ticket a guy riding a bicycle who sails through a stop sign on a residential street with no traffic present, but he will ticket a car every time. The reason for that is because the traffic court is not empowered to assess a fine for that. As desperate as the courts are for every penny, there is no way a judge would assess a fine on a school kid for riding no-handed or on the wrong side of the street in front of his house in a residential neighborhood with no traffic in sight.
Yes, in an extreme situation, where there is substantial traffic and an obvious danger to the biker or the ambient traffic, a law exists which enables a cop to remove an offending biker. But otherwise, if a citizen is not operating a vehicle for which a license is required, he has constitutional protection from being detained on a public street without probable cause, and riding a bike by itself is not a probable cause, no matter if there is a law that it is subject to the rules of the road. The same constitutional protection applies to a person riding a bike and a person walking a bike.
I will bet that in Texas or New Hampshire or any other state, there has never been a case brought to court in which a person is being charged with nothing more than breaking a motor vehicle traffic law on a bike in an environment in which there is no other traffic and the infraction does not represent a clear and present danger to the bike rider of the public safety. But licensed motor vehicles are ticketed for that all the time, and in fact traps are set up to harvest them.
So, as a practical matter, stop signs do not apply to bikers, but in a traffic environment in which the presence of a biker can represent a danger to public safety, the stop signs can be held to apply to anyone present, including bikers.
Where do you get your understanding of vehicle law? Bicyclists are always subject to all the same traffic laws and fines as any car or truck, always, including stop signs. Stop signs always apply to bikers, do not delude yourself into thinking otherwise and it is irresponsible to encourage bikers to not stop or to lead others to believe they are not subject to the traffic laws.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I did a track stand and was stopped the required time. It's more dangerous getting in and out of cleats than it is track standing. I knew arguing this with the moto-cop who "observed" me from 500 yards back was a waste of time. He also missed the J-walker that I almost hit too. I just figure about every 5 years I'll be contributing to some pension plan just like motorists do. j
